Re: Small MAKEDEV bug

2000-05-09 Thread Bruce Evans
On Mon, 8 May 2000, Tim Vanderhoek wrote: > On Mon, May 08, 2000 at 06:56:03PM -0400, Jeroen C. van Gelderen wrote: > > > > > > I don't buy it :-). This syntax is similar to a special case of the syntax > > > of jot(1). It's better to use jot(1) directly, e.g.: > > > > > > MAKEDEV $(jot -

Re: Small MAKEDEV bug

2000-05-09 Thread Sheldon Hearn
On Tue, 09 May 2000 10:26:05 +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote: > I don't agree. I think this is an issue of avoiding changes that > unnecessarily astonish existing users. If you can find ways to improve > MAKEDEV that don't inconvenience those already familiar with it, great. > If your improvements

Re: Small MAKEDEV bug

2000-05-09 Thread Sheldon Hearn
On Mon, 08 May 2000 18:56:03 -0400, "Jeroen C. van Gelderen" wrote: > Now it's a question of "the UNIX way" vs. convenience/userfriendlyness > :-) I don't agree. I think this is an issue of avoiding changes that unnecessarily astonish existing users. If you can find ways to improve MAKEDEV t

Re: Small MAKEDEV bug

2000-05-08 Thread Tim Vanderhoek
On Mon, May 08, 2000 at 06:56:03PM -0400, Jeroen C. van Gelderen wrote: > > > > I don't buy it :-). This syntax is similar to a special case of the syntax > > of jot(1). It's better to use jot(1) directly, e.g.: > > > > MAKEDEV $(jot -w da 2 0)# make 2 acd devices beginning at acd0 b$

Re: Small MAKEDEV bug

2000-05-08 Thread Jeroen C. van Gelderen
Bruce Evans wrote: > > On Mon, 8 May 2000, David O'Brien wrote: > > > On Sun, May 07, 2000 at 03:27:07PM -0400, Jeroen C. van Gelderen wrote: > > > Or just settle for a more intuitive solution: > > > MAKEDEV acd2 creates /dev/acd2 > > > MAKEDEV 2 acd creates /dev/acd[01] > > > which would a

Re: Small MAKEDEV bug

2000-05-08 Thread Bruce Evans
On Mon, 8 May 2000, David O'Brien wrote: > On Sun, May 07, 2000 at 03:27:07PM -0400, Jeroen C. van Gelderen wrote: > > Or just settle for a more intuitive solution: > > MAKEDEV acd2 creates /dev/acd2 > > MAKEDEV 2 acd creates /dev/acd[01] > > which would allow for "MAKEDEV 64 da" and "MAKED

Re: Small MAKEDEV bug

2000-05-08 Thread Jeroen C. van Gelderen
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "David O'Brien" writes: > >On Sun, May 07, 2000 at 03:27:07PM -0400, Jeroen C. van Gelderen wrote: > >> Or just settle for a more intuitive solution: > >> MAKEDEV acd2 creates /dev/acd2 > >> MAKEDEV 2 acd creates /dev/acd[01] > >>

Re: Small MAKEDEV bug

2000-05-08 Thread Jeroen C. van Gelderen
David O'Brien wrote: > > On Sun, May 07, 2000 at 03:27:07PM -0400, Jeroen C. van Gelderen wrote: > > Or just settle for a more intuitive solution: > > MAKEDEV acd2 creates /dev/acd2 > > MAKEDEV 2 acd creates /dev/acd[01] > > which would allow for "MAKEDEV 64 da" and "MAKEDEV 256 pty" > > I

Re: Small MAKEDEV bug

2000-05-08 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "David O'Brien" writes: >On Sun, May 07, 2000 at 03:27:07PM -0400, Jeroen C. van Gelderen wrote: >> Or just settle for a more intuitive solution: >> MAKEDEV acd2 creates /dev/acd2 >> MAKEDEV 2 acd creates /dev/acd[01] >> which would allow for "MAKEDEV 64 da" a

Re: Small MAKEDEV bug

2000-05-08 Thread David O'Brien
On Sun, May 07, 2000 at 03:27:07PM -0400, Jeroen C. van Gelderen wrote: > Or just settle for a more intuitive solution: > MAKEDEV acd2 creates /dev/acd2 > MAKEDEV 2 acd creates /dev/acd[01] > which would allow for "MAKEDEV 64 da" and "MAKEDEV 256 pty" I agree with this syntax and after send

Re: Small MAKEDEV bug

2000-05-07 Thread Jeroen C. van Gelderen
[CC culled, -stable removed] David O'Brien wrote: > > On Sun, May 07, 2000 at 04:59:46PM +0200, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote: > > Can we settle this once and for all in a slightly sane manner? > > > > I committed the change so that MAKEDEV acd1 creates acd1 and not just > > acd0. > > Thi

Re: Small MAKEDEV bug

2000-05-07 Thread David O'Brien
On Sun, May 07, 2000 at 04:59:46PM +0200, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote: > Can we settle this once and for all in a slightly sane manner? > > I committed the change so that MAKEDEV acd1 creates acd1 and not just > acd0. This is wrong. ``MAKEDEV acd2'' should either create only /dev/acd2*,

Re: Small MAKEDEV bug

2000-05-07 Thread Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven
-On [2506 21:55], Bruce Evans ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >On Sat, 6 May 2000, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > >> I've just noticed that "sh MAKEDEV acd1" doesn't produce node for acd1 due to >> incorrect comparasion in the "while" loop. This affecting both 4.0-STABLE and >> 5.0-CURRENT. With this messa

Re: Small MAKEDEV bug

2000-05-06 Thread Maxim Sobolev
Bruce Evans wrote: > On Sat, 6 May 2000, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > > > I've just noticed that "sh MAKEDEV acd1" doesn't produce node for acd1 due to > > incorrect comparasion in the "while" loop. This affecting both 4.0-STABLE and > > 5.0-CURRENT. With this message I'm attaching short patch which sh

Re: Small MAKEDEV bug

2000-05-06 Thread Bruce Evans
On Sat, 6 May 2000, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > I've just noticed that "sh MAKEDEV acd1" doesn't produce node for acd1 due to > incorrect comparasion in the "while" loop. This affecting both 4.0-STABLE and > 5.0-CURRENT. With this message I'm attaching short patch which should solve > this little prob

Re: Small MAKEDEV bug

2000-05-06 Thread Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven
-On [2506 10:40], Maxim Sobolev ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >- while [ $i -lt $units ]; do >+ while [ $i -le $units ]; do Tested and committed to both CURRENT and 4-STABLE. -- Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven Network- and systemadministrator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Small MAKEDEV bug

2000-05-06 Thread Maxim Sobolev
Hi, I've just noticed that "sh MAKEDEV acd1" doesn't produce node for acd1 due to incorrect comparasion in the "while" loop. This affecting both 4.0-STABLE and 5.0-CURRENT. With this message I'm attaching short patch which should solve this little problem. -Maxim --- MAKEDEV 2000/05/06 08: